You better hope that those lame heirs of yours do not delete the email or fail to keep that e-mail account active.

In late 2014, I recall that the price of Bitcoin was around $385 at the time.  I had verified an e-mail address of a friend and his son.  I told the dad that I was sending bitcoin to both him and to his son, and I wanted to make sure that I sent the bitcoin to a properly valid e-mail address.  He verified the e-mail addresses and I sent the bitcoin to each address.  I believe that I confirmed with him a couple of times soon after sending the bitcoins and then again about a year after I had sent the bitcoins. 

Then in about January 2018, he "became aware" of bitcoin, and realized that the value that I had sent him had gone 50x at some time towards the top of BTC's price move but he had not opened either of the e-mails.  He said that he no longer had access to those e-mail accounts because they were tied to a family domain name and account that had been closed. I told him that there was nothing that I could do about it on my end.  Maybe I was acting as if I was dead, and I had already done me part, including reminding verifying with him and reminding him on a couple of occasions, but he did not take any action at all to secure the value (the e-mail), until it was too late.

I could think of other scenarios too, in which using an e-mail address might not be so great, and it might not even be the fault of the intended BTC recipient - third party risk that involves them continuing their services.  Remember in the early 2000s, so many people built websites on geocities, and sure they announced that they would be closing down, before they did close down, but a lot of people lost their data if they did not back that data up when they did actually pull the plug from their services.

Holy shit!!!!  I think that may be the originating promise of a hat-eating post.  I had only gone back searching to about April 2018 looking for some kind of thread of that discussion.

Of course, members sometimes would promise all kinds silly-ass shit, including infofront promising to suck everyone's dick if BTC reached $100k by the end of 2018, rosewater started to post food pics of sandwiches and calamari, which may even kind of relate to Adam historically promising to buy beers at various points that the BTC price moved that seemed to have motivated Bob into his beer-buying promise if BTC sunk below a certain price and various other BTC price-related promises like that. 

Regarding the Hairy hat eating promise, I had recalled that there had been at least a little bit of back and forth about Hairy saying that he would eat his hat (but I did not see any back and forth around January 11), yet the hat eating promise seemed to have been part of the motivation for why V8 was playing upon that kind of a hat-eating theme - which thereafter resulted in XhomerX10 offering hats to various members (not necessarily for the purpose of eating, but instead based on some of the posts of MicGeese saying that he had been buying bitcoin related hats).... so the eating-of hats promise component kind of got lost in the way the hat-obsession tradition evolved.  Go figure.

And your point?

There is the same kinds of calling for down when the price has already gone down 70% or 85% from an ATH  or 50% from a local high. 

People say all kinds of dumb shit that assigns too high of probabilities to future events, and they can be equally guilty when they are failing and refusing to account for downward correction to BTC price when the BTC prices are going up and on the other side of the coin, they are failing and refusing to account for upwards BTC price movement (a reversal of the local trend) when the BTC prices are going down. 

Seems to me that folks assigning high probabilities to down now, whether they are calling for $5ks or they are calling for revisiting $3,122 bottom are equally guilty to over exuberance that may or may not play out in favor of their assertation(s).

Of course, the action that any BTC investor should be considering should be based upon his or her own situation, and if s/he has already accumulated some BTC or is new to BTC.  I always suggest to get some stake in BTC, similar to the person above (Lieldoryn) who was suggesting that people might want to establish a stake in BTC in case it goes up from the then price of $16k or whatever it was on that day.  Of course, any person investing into BTC or any other asset after a 78x price appreciation over the previous 2 years, should have been considering their getting a stake with a bit of skepticism regarding how much of their funds to allocate at those prices.  Of course, retrospectively, any price might seem ridiculous if the price ends up moving in considerable ways with the passage of time, so in any case, none of us are investing retrospectively.  Instead we are investing based on the information we currently know and attempting to take a rational and reasonable approach to invest prospectively.

Sure some guys want to attempt to play around with guessing, but dollar cost averaging, HODLing and buying on dips have been tried and true methods through bitcoin's history, and even today, as I type, there is no real convincing evidence that changing to some other method of attempting to time and to play around would be prudent in terms of future BTC price performance expectations.

From my recollection, this early hat history conversation goes back before October 15, 2018 - because I believe that the main reason that V8 was razzing Hairy so much about hat eating was because months earlier Hairy had said that he would eat his hat if there was certain BTC price movement.  I can't remember exactly the bold prediction, so I went back and looked at Hairy's posts for many months before October 15, but I could not find such post.. so I cannot exactly refresh my memory with an actual post.

That beer was a test to verify if any real astute peep was reading.

Hm.  You have verified my test....


meh




 




Oh my... am I biting my nails.....

Whoaza!!!!!!   Coming out hardball, but I am glad that you are still willing to play ball.  Let's see how "obvious" is your explanation or my purported wrong thinking on the matter.


So far, so good.  I am with you.  I mean I agree.


Yeah.  You own what coins are in the dust address and you own the coins that you sent to the exchange - except the exchange has custody over those coins that you sent to them, but you are still the owner, whether you refer to it as technically or not.  Of course, they have the private keys so you could end up getting fucked by giving them your private keys.


I think that you lost me a bit here, but I believe that I still get your point that we are talking about coins that are on an exchange, and yeah if they screw up, you get hacked or they exit scam you, then you are fucked out of your coins.  That is correct.  You are not getting those coins back in those situations.


Now you are getting patronizing.  Of course, I have heard about that.  I referred to the concept in my earlier response.

Fair enough that some of the GOX coins might have been moved to individual addresses, but I doubt it.  The GOX coins are just under higher level of scrutiny now, and they are still combined into a few addresses and held /managed and oversaw through a custodian who is also under court review.


I still think that you are getting caught up on the fact that the custodian can fuck you over.  Of course, they can, but if you are at a bar, and you ask a friend to hold your beer for a few minutes while you attempt to chat up the girl next to you, and when you come back you expect your friend to give you back your beer rather than to have drunk it.  Yeah, he may have drunk it, but that surely was not part of the agreement, so you might punch him in the face or having buy you a new beer or just unfriend him, but it still was your beer, even though you gave custody over to him for a short period.

Yeah, maybe you are getting caught up on whether the agreement was clear about who owned the coins or the beer or whatever, but that is the technicality, not whether you actually owned the coins or the beer.


We count them as bitcoin investors because they are bitcoin investors who have left their coins with a custodian.  They may or may not get their coins back when they claim them, but they are still bitcoin investors for the purpose of counting, whether you want call it "technical" or not.  Now, for the purpose of having securely ensured that they can get their coins, that is another issue, but the underlying account holders are still bitcoin investors even if their coins are co-mingled with thousands of other account holders.


Of course, having your coins with a third party creates a variety of third party risks, but that does not take away from the fact that the underlying account holders are bitcoin owners.  Whether they actually ever remove their coins from the exchange or choose to leave the coins there for years and years will affect the odds that something might happen to their coins to cause them to be removed from ownership.


That's right.  There may be millions of them, and we can agree to disagree, and I am going to call your thinking fuzzy logic to the extent that you want to continue to insist that an exchange with one address of millions of account holders who have claims to the bitcoins within the address is just counted as one owner.  That is just irrational principle and technical based bullshit, that does not align with the actual on the ground facts that the individual owners could chose to get their coins and to remove them from that address.. . maybe through proof of keys or whatever, and if the exchange does not give the coins or say that they were hacked or exits, then that is another story that may or may not result in the owners who thought that they have bitcoins ending up not having the bitcoins that they thought that they had.


Yes there is an attempt to figure out how many actual people are in bitcoin and whether adoption is growing because addresses are growing.


Yes, you are trying to read "real" possession as a requirement concerning whether someone actually qualifies as a bitcoin owner, and I disagree with you.  Likely a lot of other peeps are going to disagree with you too, but whatever, we can agree to disagree and I can call you deluded in terms of your "technical" limitations that you want to impose onto bitcoin owners, and you can disagree with me too.  Whatever.


Again.. patronizing and you proved no point, except maybe reiterating and/or explaining your previously asserted beliefs, and I am surprised that you want to double down and go to town so strongly on this "technical" but seemingly inaccurate factual point.

The number of 28 million bitcoin addresses surely has a significance, but it is not exactly reflective of numbers of people involved in bitcoin or owners of bitcoin whether talking about on chain ownership or claims through various kinds of custodians or even lightning channels that are linked to addresses.  

Anyhow, I doubt that we really need to go on about these foundational points and our disagreement on such foundational points.  It is trite at best.  In other words, I stand by the points of my previous post and any other subsequent explanation attempts that I have made in this post.

1st) the person who you spoke with at the bank who is checking with the manager might not be getting back to you because they are still looking into the matter, to the extent that they understand the question.

2nd)  I find real problems with your attempt to get a bank involved to insure bitcoins that you safeguard in a safety deposit box or whatever you are doing with that.
I doubt that they even need to know what you have in your safety deposit box and the value of it (especially when it comes to the bitcoin aspect of it, because the bitcoins [eg keys] should not be only in one place, anyhow).  Furthermore, hopefully you are storing one back up or one aspect of your bitcoins in such safety box rather than your ONLY ability to access it.  Don't get me wrong, I am not against the idea of having either a back up or part of a key in a safety deposit box, but I see no reason to either tell the fucktwat bank managers about the contents of your box or the significance of it, or to attempt to insure such contents, but that does not mean that you should not be taking measures to ensure your coins in various kinds of means, whether it is using back ups or multi-sig or some variation of those kinds of security measures.  Of course, passing on your estate and considerations like that will likely involve instructions to second and or third parties that may or may  not know their instructions until after your passing (if that were to happen.. or should I say when it happens and if you have bitcoin at the time?).


Additionally:  What jo-squared said.


Agreed about everything you said, AlcoHoDL, except there might be some need to write down the additional pass phrase for a few reasons 1) in case you get brain trama or otherwise detained, 2) to pass down to heirs and 3) possibly other related reasons

Are you talking about the models that I mentioned, because I am not promoting or arguing anything, except rebutting the proclamations of diptwat Bossian by providing some alternative considerations that he seems to be ignoring in terms of how probable he is asserting his own seemingly FUD spreading nonsense is suggesting to have decently high odds of coming true.   So all I was suggesting is that he seems to be assigning too high of odds to his own proclamations.



Of course, I am NOT asserting that his model might not end up playing out, but BTC is not a mature asset, so it seems quite short sighted to be attempting to assign mature market attributes to it....  which surely would seem to be the case when someone seems to be overly relying on technical analysis that comes from seemingly more lackluster performing assets.


Could be true that there is a need to revisit some of the lows to weed out some more weak hands and allow for stronger buy support to catch up with price, but down before up or even necessitating a longer BTC accumulation period is doubtful a condition precedent in order to BTC prices to continue up from here.   Also, looking at the four year fractal model, it surely appears that BTC's price spurt from $4,200 to $13,880 did get a bit ahead of itself.. and surely with our current set of corrections, we seem to be experiencing some return to the mean, in terms of that particular 4-year fractal model.


Fair enough.



Of course, Masterluc is all over the place with his predictions in the past couple of years, and just because he has revised his BTC price predictions a number of times is far from making him any kind of BTC price sorcerer - even though he seems to get quite a lot of credit for BTC price predicting skills.

Of course, if you were a victim you could make those kinds of return of the asset arguments, especially if you have any meaningful evidence that the coins are still in the custody of the person claiming NOT to have them.   I just have my doubts about those kinds of arguments would fly necessarily if the possession of the coins are questioned.  Of course, there may be burden of proof for the holder of the coins to show that he no longer has them and certain facts around such matter that might be taken with a grain of salt, too depending on the whole set of facts regarding what happened and if there is any kind of showing that the holder of the coins had been acting in good / reasonable faith.


The Craig Wright ruling might be different, at least in the sense that he had continuously claimed to still have the coins (just not the ability to access to them, currently)... so the court was likely using his own statements of possession against him.  If he is claiming to have the coins, then it is easier to express such ruling in terms of both the asset and the dollar value and the change in value of the asset in terms of dollars seems to be almost a non-issue under those Craig Wright kinds of factual findings.

I doubt that it would be fair, in terms of equity, for any court to actually rule the return of the actual asset when the asset might be up anywhere between 50x and 1,000x depending upon a ruling that would establish when the violation had occurred (whether breach of fiduciary duties or some kind of fraud or conversion), if there were such a finding that put a date on the valuation and could conclude the amount of BTC at issue at the point of such violation(s). 

You seem to have a perverted way of taking not your keys not your coins to an extreme, ivomm.

Of course, if custodians have bitcoin keys they can brute-forcedly fuck peeps out of their coins, whether by hook or by crook or by accident.  But having a claim to coins rather than holding actual coins does not mean that those people with claims to coins are not bitcoin holders, even though they personally are not holding the keys.

Get real.   Think about it.  Don't be giving any license to coin custodians to believe that they own the coins under their control, and custodians still have fiduciary obligations, even if they get a lot of leeway in their legal rights and even their historical corrupt practices and abuse in that direction.

If people had absolutely no faith in institutions custodying their value (whether bitcoin or otherwise), we would have a lot of fucked up situations and likely be in a kind of stone age that lacks in finances and money and inferior systems that involve trading cows and chickens, etc etc.

So, anyhow, there may be some bitcoin wallets that custody the bitcoins of thousands or even millions of users, and of course, most exchanges are going to engage in some dividing of the assets under management, so institutions might also have some addresses that hold a large number of bitcoins and other wallets with smaller amounts of bitcoins and in the end, there are real people and real institutions that have valid and legit claims to those coins under management..even if their claim has legally (and reality) inferior status than the coin of someone who is actually holding his/her/its own coins and private keys.

Anyone familiar with some of my earlier posts, likely realizes that I am no fan of richard heart, so for sure I agree with Peter's overall assessment that Heart is a scammer, but jeez, I am not sure if their short conversation reflected worse upon Heart or worse upon Peter.  Sure, Peter said that he had not done any preparation for the conversation, and largely Richard had invited Peter to discuss the matter of the scam Hex project, and Peter said that he had done absolutely no preparations and had only intended to come on to the live feed and just call Richard a scammer.  That was Peter's intent, and he did not intend to back anything up beyond that.

Surely, Richard is decently good at debating in terms of doing his homework (or at least having prepared several talking points that attempt to cause him to appear to be way the fuck more objective than he really is), and the 2-minute clip did cause me to go and look at the original longer interview, which is the full discussion between Richard and Peter, that lasts about 20 minutes.  That full YouTube video is linked through Richard Heart's page or something like that, if I recall correctly.

When looking at the full video, after Peter is no longer on the call, Richard continues with his live stream and attempts to contextualize and clarify the interaction with Peter... in which Peter is just calling Richard a scammer over and over and over with little to no further substance.  

I was partly drawn into Richard's further monologue following the discussion with Peter because I wanted to see how Richard was going to continue to contextualize their conversation and then go onto recovering from the earlier discussion.
 There is some ease in which Richard was able to do that because Peter did not give many difficult reasonings or background to back up his overly asserted repeated conclusions that Richard is a scammer.  

The whole stream of Richard's longer monologue that followed his discussion with Peter is something like 2.5 hours, and I was lulled a bit into watching and listening to Richard's nonsensical monologue for a bit over an hour and a half before I could not take it any longer.  

It is like self-abuse, I suppose, to tolerate listening to that guy and his various spinning efforts which ends up devolving into many times proclaiming regarding how wonderful HEX is and how it is nearly guaranteed to make you rich (even though there are no guarantees)... oh fuck, gawd, give me back my wasted time listening to his nonsense... but o.k.... I am a glutten for punishment, sometimes... or caught me in the right mood to tolerate or something?

So what about the auditing part?  Is there any actual audit, or are you just referring to the efforts of TwitchySeal and some other members attempts to draw attention to some of OG's history.. which I suppose is a fair use of the word "audit", even if I misread it to be more detailed in terms of review actual OG records, whether financial or otherwise.


Probably makes it more difficult to take down the forum if he is holding less forum value.  I have hardly any ideas about total value that the forum has, or how much it goes beyond the 500BTC that were returned or other financial assets or encumbrances that the forum might have.  I suppose that you are not really referring to taking down the forum in terms of finances but instead if there were some other fraud that might end up implicating or even discouraging someone like theymos from continuing to run the forum?  which I suppose you never know if there could end up being evidence that implicates further down the line (or up the line), and of course, I am just engaging in logical speculation rather than any actual evidence that goes beyond inferences.... which sometimes people end up getting prosecuted for mere inferences rather than direct evidence.



Bitcoin should give less than two fucks about any scammers within, unless they happen to be undermining bitcoin from within and placing secret code or something like that.  If we are talking about more scams getting revealed to the public, surely bitcoin should be able to survive those kinds of matters without any kind of blemish, because there are already scams upon scams upon scams, and scams likely come with the territory of any kind of asset (including new ones in the crypto space) that end up having actual financial value.   Regarding your point about administrative access to posts that were deleted, yep you would think that they could be made available, but again getting way beyond my factual knowledge that is for sure.


There would need to be investigations by prosecutors and charges, and surely some charges can sometimes be secret until all of a sudden peeps end up getting arrested, but gosh, way too soon to be suggesting that OG might be going to jail - even though sometimes testimonial evidence could end up resulting in subpoenas, and frequently we are not going to hear about subpoenas in the public, but we might end up hearing about a door that gets broken down in the middle of the night in which arrests end up being made -as far as such a matter goes public... and hey, if an arrest gets made, peeps end up in jail real fast, even if they may be able to post bond and get out quickly, presuming that they are considered not to be a flight risk, which could go either way depending on how much value is actually at stake in any hypothetical charges that would be brought, whether against OG or any other person that ends up being accused of being involved in actual crimes within the bitcoin/crypto space.

By the way, many of us likely realize that there are many crimes in the crypto space that are not even prosecuted, yet.  I am not sure if I should name any names, but let me just say in the phone porting sims hi-jacking context, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars of value or even more are taken, but law enforcement does not seem to even investigate a lot of those relatively BIG value cases.... but I suppose, on the other hand, if they are pointed to an actual identifiable person and enough information to at least to make a prosecutable case, then in those cases they are going to be more compelled to take further investigatory actions that may end up resulting in an arrest (or arrests) - one of the risks of dealing with other peoples money and even exercising fiduciary duties (but end up abusing the following of those fiduciary duties).

Your prediction of a largely flat BTC prices in 2020 and perhaps only a slight increase in BTC prices in 2021 seem to have pretty damned low chances of happening in the minds of anyone who has actually studied the patterns of the Bitcoin space including the stock to flow model, the four-year fractal model, the s-curve exponential adoption metcalfe networking model and any other similar models that seem to demonstrate an increase in ongoing BTC buying pressures with the passage of time, especially in these seemingly early days of adoption.

Of course, some monkey wrench can be thrown into any of these patterns in order to allow more probabilities to your price prediction projections, but there are really no signs of such, including your agreed upon expectation that bitcoin prices are ultimately going up, just delayed from your seemingly disingenuous perspective.   

In other words, you seem to be assigning quite higher than 50% odds to events such as down before up that are likely to be quite less than 20% of happening in any way close to your asserted proclaimed expectations absent some fantasticly bearish currently unknown developments that could happen but surely they don't even seem to be part of your own prediction model.

This is how I feel about you, at the moment, jbreher (I am the one in the blue.  You are the one in the white):

That's fine.  I don't mind being poked, and even if there is merely a difference of opinion regarding what are reasonable increments.

Of course, there will be a decent amount of user discretion in these kinds of matters, and my previous grilling of you was attempting to take into account the whole situation and what I perceived to be reasonable adjustments, based on increased bitcoin prices and also presumptions that your stack of coins would have decent probabilities of being somewhere in the same territory as mine, but maybe I am presuming too much, too?  Or even your values on time versus money, since we are likely similar ages, even though I suspect you are a bit older than me.



You might have some more efficient methods of time management or order management than me, but I have been practicing with my trading and setting orders and blah blah blah enough to know how much time those kinds of activities take for myself and how I value my time versus my money and those kinds of weighings of personal factors. 

So, in the end, I am just asserting a general outline for what I am doing in regards to my BTC trade orders and the adjustment that I have historically made, continue to make and tentatively anticipate making in the future.

The link that you provided, Vod, does not show evidence or any description of an actual audit. 

Are you referring to a different part of that thread in your above link?

You are just going to sit back?

Aren't you going to be nervous?

I was nervous when BTC went from $5k to $20k in mid-October 2017 to mid-December 2017.  

Of course, it was exciting and made me feel good, smart and rich, but it was also nerve racking.  

I suspect that if we get BTC price moves from $100k to $300k in anything close to a 2 months time frame (let's say in about late 2021 - could come sooner or could come later), I am anticipating that I am going to be quite nervous... even though I anticipate that I am still likely going to have a lot of bitcoins in such a scenario...  anticipate to be more than 70% of my current stash, I suspect.

I was not referring to any bearwhale(s) in particular.  You should have been able to understand my mean ing from my earlier post.

There is a general phenomenon that bearwhales employ both hard dumping and FUD spreading or whatever they can in order to attempt to get the BTC price to go down for as long and as far that is possible... and at some point they are not able to achieve such downward movement and have to start to go with UP because otherwise they are going to get REKKT if the momentum changes to up while they are trying to push down that is not working.

You need more specifics regarding the point(s) that I was attempting proclaim as a general phenomenon, or are you just trying to stir shit? 

By the way, you likely should realize from my referred-to post that I was not even attempting to make any kind of specific assessment regarding whether BTC prices were going to continue to go down in the short to medium term or not, because like usual, I have hardly any kind of meaningful clue that goes much beyond 50/50.

Maybe you can explain?

I was not expressing the matter as a problem.

Day 1 - BTC prices were at about $7,200.

Day 1.5 - BTC prices bounced to about $7,772.70.

Day 2 - BTC prices were at about $7,200.


I was just saying that my BTC were worth the same on Day 2 as they had been on Day 1 and none of my sell orders triggered.

So, there is not a problem.

We have already had some variation of this conversation, and in that older conversation, I was actually asserting that maybe you should not be trading BTC so frequently, especially if you are supposedly already relatively well off from bitcoin.  But, I understand that maybe I was presuming too much, and you want to continue to trade BTC on smaller price increments.  That is your personal choice, and it is discretionary regarding how you value your time versus how much money (whether bitcoin or dollars) that you may or may not be able to stack up by trading so frequently versus how much time it takes to manage your trades, especially if you are carrying them out manually.

Like I mentioned, I started trading when BTC prices were at about $250, and as BTC prices went further and further up, my intention was to structure my BTC trading increments to go up, not only in dollar terms but also in percentage terms.  When I first started, I wanted to get so fucking much practice that I actually just structured my trades to at least minimally be profitable by covering the trade fees and maybe a fraction of a percent of profit off of each trade.  I wanted so much practice that I set the increments small so that I was practicing a lot.  By the time BTC prices got into the 4 digits realm, I was feeling a whole hell of a lot better in terms of my having had learned through practice, and I felt that I did not need as much practice, and at various points as BTC's price went up, I restructured a larger and larger percentage of BTC price change would have to take place before my BTC orders were going to be triggered (whether selling or buying).

That restructuring took place all the way up to $20k, but when BTCV prices came back down to $3k I made the increments smaller and of course, when they went up to $14k they got larger again, and then smaller again upon coming down to $7k-ish.

This has neither been a set-in-stone system nor an exact predetermined tweaking of my system.  I have had to roll with the punches a bit and to try to figure out what kinds of time versus money management was comfortable for me, which includes considering how much time I am willing to tolerate resetting BTC buy/sell orders versus other ways that I want to spend my time versus how much money I felt that I would be making whether the increments are set smaller versus larger - even though I would assert that I have achieved ongoing movements towards increasing my increments larger and larger and larger as BTC prices are mostly UP as compared to when I first started, but I also have continued to feel less inclined to either practice trading BTC in the smaller increments or any kind of need to make extra money by spending my time in that way.

Of course, I have not completely removed myself from the BTC trading game, and perhaps my regular spreads seem to be quite easily in the more than 10% arena before they even start - and that is way the fuck more than I need to cover exchange fees, like when I started, and currently, I am thinking that even if BTC prices go up to $100k or more, I am likely going to end up trading BIGGER BTC price swings.. perhaps in the greater than 25% arena.   

But, yeah, these matters are not exactly set in stone, but I have ideas in my head about where I am and where I would prefer to go under various scenarios, whether the BTC price goes up or down, and of course if the BTC price continues to go up, as many of us tentatively suspect to be likely, then my trade increments are going to continue to get quite a bit larger, and I won't be giving too many shits about trading BTC at all, except perhaps on the REAL BIG price swings.

That is the goal, and it seems to have been working out pretty well so far in terms of causing greater and greater increments for me (which includes less actual time spent trading BTC), and let's see where we end up... hopefully UPward prices and even less trading.

Again, jbreher, what is the problem, exactly?  You are suggesting that I could have made money and I did not?  Fuck that.  I don't give too many shits about those small BTC price moves, and that is largely the punch line.  If you are suggesting something else, then please explain or let me know if there is something that I have not adequately described in order that you understand what I was saying in my earlier post.